HILL v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT [2020] NZCA 619

HILL v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT [2020] NZCA 619 [3December 2020]IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALANDI TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROACA433/2019[2020] NZCA 619BETWEEN PERCY HILLApplicantAND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRYOF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENTRespondentCourt: Brown and Courtney JJCounsel: Applicant in personN J Wills and G Niven for RespondentJudgment:(On the papers)3 December 2020 at 3 pmJUDGMENT OF THE COURTA The application for an extension of time to comply with r 43 of the Court ofAppeal (Civil) Rules 2005 is declined.B Mr Hill's appeal is deemed abandoned.____________________________________________________________________REASONS OF THE COURT(Given by Courtney J)[1] This is an application for an extension of time under r 43 of the Court of Appeal(Civil) Rules 2005.[2] A good deal of the application is concerned with a previous decision ofMiller J, on a Registrar's review, refusing dispensation for security for costs.1 Thatdecision was delivered on 11 May 2020. Security has not been paid. The presentapplication is not an opportunity to revisit that decision, which was final.[3] So far as the application pertains to r 43, Mr Hill maintains that his appeal, inwhich he seeks to challenge a debt of $17,884.60 owing to the Chief Executive of theMinistry of Social Development, has merit and blames the judicial system for 14 yearsof delay. He contends that COVID-19 restrictions in the Auckland area have hinderedhis ability to prepare the case on appeal, and he complains that there is no reason forurgency in disposition of his case. He emphasises that he is self-represented andclaims that he "has been consistent with every demand" of the courts. In a supportingaffidavit he deposes to a family emergency concerning the health of his mother, whodied in September 2020.[4] The Chief Executive observes that Mr Hill previously sought an adjournmentof the hearing of this application, citing his wish to file in the Family Court a challengeto a decision related to the death of his mother. Brown J made the followingobservations:2[2] However Mr Hill has not complied with the obligation under r 43 ofthe Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005 to file a case on appeal and apply forthe allocation of a fixture. He has been granted several extensions of time tocomply with the rule, namely on 9 October, 19 November, 17 December 2019,15 January, 14 February, 13 March and 15 April 2020.[3] The final date for complying with r 43 was 18 May 2020. Byoperation of r 43(1) Mr Hill's appeal was deemed abandoned on 19 May 2020.[5] Having regard to the circumstances asserted by Mr Hill, Brown J granted ashort adjournment, intended to ensure that the r 43 application would be determinedthis year. He directed an exchange of submissions which was to conclude on 20November. In response, Mr Hill renewed his application for adjournment,unsuccessfully.1 Hill v Chief Executive of the Ministry of Social Development [2020] NZCA 157 [Decision ofMiller J].2 Hill v Chief Executive of the Ministry of Social Development CA433/2019, 14 October 2020.[6] The Chief Executive also observes that the dispute began in June 2010 andincludes a six-year delay on Mr Hill's side. The appeal first reached this Court inAugust 2019 and Mr Hill has yet to comply with his obligations under r 43. There isno reason to suppose that he will do so, and any extension will likely be futile giventhat he seems unlikely to pay security for costs.[7] Finally, the Chief Executive submits that the appeal plainly has no merit,referring to the judgment of Downs J that is the subject of the appeal and the judgmentof Miller J on the security for costs question.3 Miller J concluded that the grounds ofappeal were hopeless and raised no tenable question of law justifying a second appeal.4The Chief Executive points out that the decision of Downs J declined an extension oftime to allow Mr Hill to bring an appeal to the High Court. Ultimate success in havingthe debt reviewed would require that Mr Hill go much further. He would have tosucceed in an extended chain of extensions of time before he could relitigate the 2010decision of the Benefits Review Committee.[8] We consider that, COVID-19 and his family circumstances notwithstanding,Mr Hill has had ample time and opportunity to comply with his obligations under r 43.There is no reason to assume that he will in fact comply if an extension is granted.Nor is there any reason to suppose that he will pay security for costs, as he has beenordered to do. Those are sufficient reasons to refuse the extension. We wouldnonetheless be slow to bring the appeal to an end if it appeared to have any merit, butfor the reasons given by Downs and Miller JJ it does not.[9] The application for an extension to comply with r 43 is declined. It followsthat Mr Hill's appeal is deemed abandoned.Solicitors:Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent3 Hill v Chief Executive of the Ministry of Social Development [2019] NZHC 1661 [Decision ofDowns J].4 Decision of Miller J, above n 1, at [10]–[11].